Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)."...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DCJustices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005 The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

How many times and how many ways can this be stated. In a free nation you have personal responsibility. The government is not the answer to all your problems.
The job of the police is to introduce the ethically challenged to the Criminal Justice System. The outcome of that introduction is not within their control. The responsibility for your individual safety, begins and ends with you. Second Amendment anyone?

With all these court cases establishing the FACT that the individual is on his or her own despite an expensive police force, it only seems logical that the 2nd Amendment should be greatly EXPANDED to enumerate the right to self-protection!

But yet, the gun-grabbers argue that no one needs to own a firearm since the police will always be there to protect you. If you do shoot an intruder in your home, or fire in self-defense elsewhere, they want YOU prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, since you did no wait for the cops to respond. Idiots, all of them.

8
posted on 02/26/2008 3:56:25 AM PST
by Virginia Ridgerunner
("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)

The reason every citizen concerned about protecting themselves and their family should be allowed to own and carry firearms. The police are no longer required to do their job (ok - so it is no longer their job - so what is? Writing tickets? OOoooo I feel so much safer now...).

What ever happend to that motto I still see on many police cars? You know - the one that says:

“To protect, and to serve”.

What does that mean? To protect their own butts, and to serve each other donuts?

9
posted on 02/26/2008 4:58:20 AM PST
by TheBattman
(LORD God, please give us a Christian Patriot with a backbone for President in 08, Amen.)

Yep, they have to have time either to (1) gulp down their donuts and coffee, (2) start up the engine and crawl out from behind the bushes or roadsigns where they’ve been hiding to find folks going three miles over the speed limit (or, in Maryland, running the windshield wipers without turning on the lights — yes, a moving offense), or (3) profiling white motorists for any one of a million minor infractions so that they (the cops) don’t have to go down to the “hood’s” open air drug markets and fight real crime.

I’m sorry. I know there are a lot of great cops. But, by and large, that industry has become a repository for a bunch of power-hungry thugs who like to lord it over cowed perpetrators of the most minor of misdemeanors.

It is well established that the police do not owe a duty to protect any individual citizen. Their duty is to the community at large to maintain order and bring to justice those who break the law. That’s pretty much it when it comes to the duties of a law enforcement agency.

This situation is also why we often hear Police Chiefs and Police Union bosses coming out in favor of banning guns. Guns in other people’s hands do make cops working conditions more dangerous and though guns offer citizens protection and defense, those things are not legally or institutionally a mandate for the police. Police chiefs and police organizations don’t get judged , except in the most cursory way, on crime prevention, but on post crime performance, Unions are interested only in their members, the public is left to fend, unarmed for itself.

The U.S. Supreme Court has written: Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

No duty to protect means there is no corresponding obligation of allegience. No allegiance to their million+ laws, statutes and regulations.

A State is a body politic — political society. A body politic is the citizens.

Connect the dots:
There is no duty to protect > there is no obligation of allegiance > there are no citizens > there is no body politic — no political society > there is no State.

Factually what is a State? What is the State of Arizona? The State of Arizona is an act of congress  words on paper. A legal fiction. Prior to February 14, 1912, the State of Arizona didnt exist.

What is government? Men and women providing services by compulsion/violence.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.